> In 2.1.x kernels, the kernel stack size is 8192 bytes (2 pages) on the i386,> minus the size of the task structure (around 1000). This means the stack is> more than 3000 bytes larger than in 2.0.x where it used to be one page. My> question is: do we really need this?

This is a _very_ good question, since it could save us oneunswappable page _per process_. This might not seem likean awful lot of memory, but with the current fragmentationproblems this patch could save our butt...(at least until the zone allocator is ready)

[snip measurements]> that allocate a 2000 byte array on the stack. Does anyone else think it> would be worthwhile to fix those and reduce the kernel stack size again?

Absolutely. Just think about someone running 60 processeson a 4MB machine. This person is now wasting 60 * 4k =240kB of _unswappable_ memory. That is 1/16th of totalmemory, which can be very taxing on your router/mailserver.

> I have a patch that makes the stack size configurable (I've even tested it...)> which I could provide if someone is interested.